Use of Administrative Claims to Assess Outcomes and Treatment Effect in Randomized Clinical Trials for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings from the Extending Trial-Based Evaluations of Medical Therapies Using Novel Sources of Data (EXTEND) Study.

Background: Whether passively collected data can substitute for adjudicated outcomes to reproduce the magnitude and direction of treatment effect observed in cardiovascular clinical trials is not well known. Methods: We linked adults >= 65 years of age in the HiR (US CoreValve Pivotal High Risk) and SURTAVI trials (Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients) to 100% Medicare inpatient claims, January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016. Primary (eg, death and stroke) and secondary trial end points were compared across treatment arms (eg, transcatheter aortic valve replacement [TAVR] versus surgical aortic valve replacement [SAVR]) using trial-adjudicated outcomes versus outcomes derived from claims at 1 year (HiR) or 2 years (SURTAVI). Results: Among 600 linked HiR participants (linkage rate, 80.0%), the rate of the trial's primary end point of all-cause mortality occurred in 13.7% of patients receiving TAVR and 16.4% of patients receiving SAVR at 1 year by using both trial data (hazard ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.09];P=0.33) and claims data (hazard ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.66-1.11];P=0.34; interactionPvalue=0.80). Noninferiority of TAVR relative to SAVR was seen by using both trial- and claims-based outcomes (P-noninferiority<0.001 for both). Among 1005 linked SURTAVI trial participants (linkage rate, 60.5%), the trial's primary end point was 12.9% for TAVR and 13.1% for SAVR using trial data (hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48];P=0.90), and 11.3% for TAVR and 12.5% for SAVR patients using claims data (hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73-1.41];P=0.58; interactionPvalue=0.89). TAVR was noninferior to SAVR when compared using both trial and claims (P-non(inferiority)<0.001 for both). Rates of procedural secondary outcomes (eg, aortic valve reintervention, pacemaker rates) were more closely concordant between trial and claims data than nonprocedural outcomes (eg, stroke, bleeding, cardiogenic shock). Conclusions: In the HiR and SURTAVI trials, ascertainment of trial primary end points using claims reproduced both the magnitude and direction of treatment effect in comparison with adjudicated event data, but nonfatal and nonprocedural secondary outcomes were not as well reproduced. Use of claims to substitute for adjudicated outcomes in traditional trial treatment comparisons may be valid and feasible for all-cause mortality and certain procedural outcomes but may be less suitable for other end points.